Re: Moving completion functions

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Mar 15,  3:46pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
}
} > Base/_precommand                Zsh/Builtin
} > Builtins/_compdef               Zsh/Builtin      
} > # some of these are functions
} 
} >From the perspective of a user it doesn't make much difference so it is
} probably better to keep them together. _precommand is also completing a
} reserved word and one non-builtin command. Maybe we should put all the
} builtins in Zsh/Command?

This makes sense to me, too.  Zsh/Builtin is, in a way, redundant; whose
builtins would we be completing, if not zsh's?

} > User/_gv                        Unix/Command
} > User/_nedit                     Unix/Command
} > User/_netscape                  Unix/Command
} 
} I think these should go in X/Command because they are all dependant on
} having X.

I agree there.

On a slightly related note, I was wondering whether it's worthwhile to
create Cygwin/Type/_path_files that includes Andrej's suggestions about
calling cygdrive, etc.  Then we'd have to make sure that Cygwin appeared
first in $fpath with --enable-function-subdirs, but was installed *after*
Unix without it ... it's also possible that netscape has different options
when executed under cygwin, so we'd need Cygwin/Command/_netscape, etc.

What should we do when there might be two conflicting implementations of
a given completion component for different operating systems?

} My preference would be for the lowest level to be removed leaving
} directories for AIX, Linux, Zsh etc but not having directories for
} Type, Command etc.

I agree with this.  If you're going to put Unix/Command in your $fpath,
can you ever *not* need Unix/Utility and Unix/Type as well?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net